Pollard to get a day in court in latest twist of famous spy case

Jewish Telegraphic Agency

By Edwin Black

WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 (JTA) - Sept. 2, 2003 is going to be a big day for

Jonathan Pollard: The American Jewish spy is going to get another day in

court.

Pollard´s lawyers will have 40 minutes in a federal courtroom to explain

why they should be permitted to continue efforts to rescind the life

sentence he received 18 years ago for committing espionage for Israel.

Years of tenacious motions by attorneys Jacques Semmelman and Eliot Lauer

either have been vigorously opposed by government attorneys or allowed to

languish in the court.

Now U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan has granted Pollard and his

attorneys - who are working on the case pro bono - a hearing.

Semmelman and Lauer will get 30 minutes to argue why they should be

permitted to appeal, the government can take a half hour to respond, and

then Pollard´s attorneys will be granted 10 minutes for the last word.

So pivotal is the hearing that the judge has ordered federal prison

officials in Butner, N.C., to shuttle Pollard to the U.S. District Court in

Washington for the event.

Prison officials said they are uncertain whether U.S. marshals would fly

Pollard to the nation´s capital or drive.

"Normally, we drive them for a mere six-hour trip," a prison spokesman

said, "but a high-profile prisoner like Pollard might be flown."

He added that arrangements would be made for Pollard´s kosher meals.

Despite mounds of legal briefs and well-researched citations, Pollard´s

hearing boils down to two issues:

. Was the ex-naval intelligence officer convicted in March 1987 on the

basis of a misleading secret 46-page affidavit?

. Was he denied due process by a defense attorney who declined to file a

routine appeal after Judge Aubrey Robinson stunned Pollard and threw a

crowded courtroom into pandemonium with an unexpected life sentence? The

life sentence violated the prosecutor´s plea agreement to not ask for life

in exchange for Pollard´s cooperation.

Then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger submitted the secret affidavit

at virtually the last minute at Robinson´s personal request.

In the affidavit, Weinberger wrote: "It is difficult for me, in the

so-called 'year of the spy´ to conceive of a greater harm to national

security."

The message, backed up with some 20 classified documents, was clear: Give

Pollard a life sentence - regardless of the written plea agreement.

Fifteen years later, Weinberger conceded that "the Pollard matter was

comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance."

Pressed on why this was so, Weinberger replied, "I don´t know why - it just

was."

Attorneys Semmelman and Lauer have been filing motion after motion to see

the supposedly secret documents so they can adequately appeal.

But their efforts have been denied on the grounds of national security,

even though they have been granted the necessary security clearances.

Semmelman is a former U.S. attorney. The documents concern sources and

methods used two decades ago, before the proliferation of personal

computers.

The second question asks whether Pollard was denied due process on account

of "ineffective assistance of counsel," according to the motion.

Pollard´s attorney at the time, Richard Hibey, has been widely criticized

for inaction. He failed to object when prosecutors violated the plea

agreement and asked for life, failed to call for an evidentiary hearing on

Weinberger´s secret affidavit, and then - to the surprise of most observers

- declined to file the routine notice of appeal in the 10 days allotted.

For years, Hibey has dodged all questions on his representation of Pollard.

Despite the hearing, there are few prospects for a Pollard release in the

immediate future.

Even if Semmelman and Lauer were granted the opportunity to appeal -

consistently denied because Hibey failed to file the 10-day notice - it

might take another year or two for any decision.

Pollard already has served far longer than the average for people

convicting of spying either for enemies of the United States or it allies.

 

The Saddest Jew (Pollard)

By Charley J. Levine

Jerusalem Magazine - August 8, 2003

 

"To an extent not fathomed, Jonathan Pollard is a litmus test about the

real values commitments and actual sovereignty of the State of Israel... If

the government of Israel were to tell President Bush that nothing is going

to move forward on the "Roadmap" until this one man comes home, he would be

home tomorrow..."

The saddest Jew in the world yesterday on the Ninth of Av was Jonathan

Pollard.

My thoughts turn to Jonathan on Tisha B'Av, because I remember that same day

several years ago when then-Justice Minister David Libai finally found a few

minutes to receive wife Esther Pollard, and I escorted her to the Justice

Ministry offices in East Jerusalem.

He said all the right things. Jonathan's freedom was a high priority for

him. He was going to take the issue up with his counterpart in Washington,

DC. I took Esther to some other meetings over the years - to then-President

Ezer Weizman (who insulted her personally before she even had a chance to

sit down on the sofa in his office!), to then-mover and shaker of the Labor

Party Haim Ramon, and others. These were just the few that I happened to

attend. Esther has been pounding the Israeli pavement for far too many

years, hearing the same thing from dozens of powerbrokers.

They all echo Libai in promising the sky, affirming their support, tossing

out possible actions to be taken. And then they fade away, and Pollard

remains in prison.

I visited Jonathan in jail, in 1996, in Butner, North Carolina. My wife and

I came to comfort, but it was he who comforted us. He was in command,

robust, focused, bloodied but unbowed.

My most recent conversation, via cell phone while sitting with Esther in

Rimon Cafe several months ago, was far more disconcerting. Jonathan sounded

terribly down. No wonder. He could have made the Guiness Book of World

Records for spending more time in prison than any other American citizen in

history convicted of the crime for which he was tried. (And they say

anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it.)

I was shocked and frightened for his well-being as never before. And yet,

still helpless.

Jonathan resurfaced recently, as he occasionally does in between long,

damning spells of benign neglect. 112 Members of Knesset signed a petition

on his behalf-they should be doing much more than that, but certainly a

positive initiative.

And then the predictable happened: Prime Minister Sharon "declined" to take

this petition with him to give to President Bush in Washington during his

visit.

An Israeli reporter asked President Bush, in a joint press conference with

Sharon, about Israel's willingness to set hundreds of terrorists free-why

couldn't the US see its way to letting Pollard go home after nearly two

decades behind bars?

President Bush gave a loopy reply about the freed Arabs, but studiously

ignored the point of the query, regarding Pollard.

I heard House Majority Leader and fellow Texan Tom DeLay speak about

US-Israel relations in the Knesset last week. And then I read that Knesset

Speaker Reuven Rivlin had presented him the petition, belatedly, to take to

Bush. DeLay agreed to deliver the document but felt impelled to add that he

personally would not support the freeing of Pollard.

Something is dramatically, terribly wrong with this picture. Ariel Sharon is

Super-Patriot who should recoil from the notion of abandoning a soldier in

the battlefield. President Bush is the best friend Israel has had in the

White House for decades, a good, moral man and a visionary leader.

Congressman DeLay is a prototypical friend and supporter who said absolutely

everything right in his remarks,except that nudnicky "thing" about Pollard.

In a recent Israel opinion poll, the two issues that absolutely topped the

list in terms of weeping, 95%+ support, were the continued unity of

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the proposition that Jonathan Pollard

should be freed. Something is fundamentally wrong when political leaders

race to affirm Jerusalem's status, yet shy away from expressing Israel's

firm resolve on the Pollard matter.

Only two groups of people care about Jonathan Pollard today. Most Americans

never heard of him and couldn't care less about his fate. A hard-core Casper

Weinberger-esque cabal of US intelligence spooks are adamantly against any

move to let him go. Call it professional bitterness, call it anti-Semitism,

call it whatever you want, but these are the folks who are keeping him

imprisoned.

The second group is Jews, divided amongst American Jews and Israelis. These

are the people who SHOULD be the counter-force, pressuring to overcome the

intelligence community's nasty stance. The American Jews, until today, have

never rallied around the Pollard cause in anything approximating a

systematic, sustained effort. They should be thoroughly ashamed of

themselves.

I must multiply that shame infinitely when I see how Israel has failed to

step up to the plate. American Jews are nebukh, Galut creatures enslaved by

decades of being too timid to get worked up over the life of a lone fellow

Jew who's served his time and deserves to be freed.

But the Israelis! The brave Israelis who fear no man. The "Bulldozer" Prime

Minister. Countless Prime Ministers preceding Sharon who had countless

meetings in Washington with Bush's predecessors.

I will say this as clearly as I possibly can. If the government of Israel

were to tell President Bush that Jonathan Pollard's life means everything to

our nation, that nothing is going to move forward on the "Roadmap" or

anything else until this one man comes home.he would be home tomorrow if not

today.

That message has not been communicated. It should be. It must be. To an

extent not fathomed, Jonathan Pollard is a litmus test about the real

values, commitments and actual sovereignty of the State of Israel.

No Prime Minister who fails to free the prisoner deserves to be re-elected.

No Cabinet Minister who does not visit Pollard in prison during his or her

American visits and does not work for his release every day deserves to

serve ever again. No Knesset member or political party that lets an hour go

by without banging the Pollard drum has earned your support.

Jonathan Pollard has hung tough for nearly 20 years. Who knows how long he

can keep doing this?

My recommendation: That everyone, and I mean everyone from newspaper hawker

and taxi driver to Foreign Affairs Minister and Prime Minister, turn a new

leaf and make Pollard their number one priority.

It will free him at long last.

 

SEE ALSO

Saner Than Most People - by Charley J. Levine

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1996/082396.htm

Freedom for Citizen Pollard - by Charley J. Levine

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1995/110095a.htm

No Parole For Citizen Pollard - by Charley J. Levine

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1995/100195b.htm

Re Linkage [ A Response to The Pollard Proposal] - By Charley J. Levine

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1995/100395.htm

The Pollard Proposal - Jlem Post Editorial

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1995/100395a.htm

 

 

Jonathan Pollard

 

I am receiving an enormous amount of information on Pollard. My research is

leading in deep directions. Please consider just two of my many tips.

Barry Chamish

 

Dear Barry - The real question remains:

Who is Esther Pollard and why does she misrepresent herself as if she is

married to Jonathan? Pollard has two Rabbis - Rav Mordecai Eliahu and Rav

Avie Weiss- neither of whom offciated at any wedding with Esther. They have

no ketubah and no civil wedding certificate

The following article from HaAretz some seven years ago sheds light on

Esther...

 

--------------------------------------------------

"We Don't Blame Jonathan"

by Ronen Bergman

(Reprinted from the HaAretz daily newspaper March 1997)

 

Molly Pollard, Jonathan's mother, is an elderly sick woman with three heart

attacks behind her. Her husband, Dr. Morris Pollard, takes her from place

to place in a wheelchair. She is eighty two years old, weak, and her voice

is barely audible. There is only one thing that she really wants, to meet

her son Jonathan one more time. Eleven years have elapsed since that

Thursday, November 21, 1985, when her son was captured outside of the

Israel Embassy in Washington and was accused of spying for the State of

Israel. On her last birthday, as told by daughter Carol, she sat opposite

me and waited. Every time the phone rang she said to those around her in a

voice full of hope, "Maybe it's Jonathan".

 

But Jonathan Pollard refuses to speak to his parents. His last conversation

with them was a year ago. By telephone, he announced to them that since

they refuse to the line of action that his new wife, Esther proposes, he is

therefore severing his connection with them and is not willing to see them

again. Molly Pollard says in a depressed voice: "We are broken-hearted. We

don't blame him. He's been in jail for so long that everything must be

forgiven for him. But it is such a pity that that wicked woman, who calls

herself Jonathan's wife, made it her aim in life to disconnect our son from

us."

 

A short time before that telephone call, his sister Carol got a similar

message. At the same time, Pollard also fired his lawyer, Nancy Locky, and

cut off his connections with the activists for his cause in Israel and in

America, including Amnon Dror, chairman of the public committee for

Pollard's release. In actual fact, he severed all his connections with the

outside world, except for his wife Esther, who is currently his only

channel to the outside world. Dr. Morris Pollard: "In retrospect I now

understand that from the start she tried to dismantle our family. She and

actions are making my son's release much more difficult. It is convenient

for her to have him inside (prison), it gives her publicity. It's as if

Jonathan doesn't have enough problems as it is, then comes this woman and

complicated things even more."

 

The Pollard couple are not the only ones of this opinion. Many people,

especially officials in Intelligence and in the Prime Minister's office,

claim that Esther Pollard, whose former name was Eileen Zeits, is causing

enormous damage for the release of the famous spy, who was convicted to

life in prison. The way in which Esther presents Pollard as a hero who

caused no harm to the national security of the US, together with the wild

accusations in which she accuses the American government of, mainly of

anti-Semitism - cause nothing but harm to his case.

 

Carol Pollard: "You have no idea how angry I am at Eileen. She ruined

everything for us. In some areas, it is possible that the damage that she

has caused to public relations concerning my brother is irreversible. She

has turned Jonathan into a poster for the extreme right, and the worst

thing she did was that she built a big wall between him and us, his family,

who have dedicated the last decade for his release."

 

A few months ago, officials from the White House were quoted in the

American Press, detailing some of the factors which caused President

Clinton to pardon Pollard. Among them they stressed, that the White House

is very upset with the radical statements that appeared in the media in the

name of Pollard and his wife. Zeits-Pollard insists on naming President

Clinton a "liar", as she has done in the past and also this week, when she

talked to the editor of the magazine section of the "Ha'aretz" newspaper:

"When Clinton refused the request for pardon he used a number of lies.

First of all he claimed that he is tied to the opinions of his advisors,

which is completely untrue. Secondly, he claimed that Jonathan caused

damage to the US. Jonathan did not cause any damage to the US national

security. I'll give you the example of Ames (sp?): In his case you can do a

body count. In Jonathan's case, where is the harm done? Where, after 12

years, is the harm done?"

 

This kind of talk also distanced her from Pollard's lawyer. Nancy Locky the

attorney, served in the past as senior prosecutor for the general D.A.

office of the United States. She was chosen to represent Pollard following

the recommendations of prominent lawyers in Israel, after she had been

interviewed by them extensively and afterwards met with Pollard's family

and with Pollard himself.

 

For Locky it was crystal clear from the start what the line of action

should be: "For Jonathan and Eileen it was very important to say that he

was a hero and that in fact he did not cause any harm in his actions. They

thought that that would sound good to the Israeli public. That may be so,

but to our regret, Jonathan is imprisoned in the US and not in Israel, and

to say to the Americans that he is a hero, and that he is not sorry for his

actions that caused no harm and that he would do it all over again, that is

most wrong thing to say. Talking this way will never make him a free man."

According to Locky, Eileen continued to encourage Pollard to think of

himself in terms of a national hero. "She also went out and fed the press

with these kind of proclamations. I wanted to silence her and I set up an

appointment with her, by Pollard, in the prison. She sat there, sweet as

honey, but with hatred in her eyes. We came to the agreement that everytime

she writes something for publication, it will go through me first and must

receive my go ahead."

 

A few days later, says Locky, she received an article written by Eileen

that was to be publicized in the Ma'ariv newspaper. "There were all the

same things there: He's an Israeli hero, a Jewish soldier abandoned by his

country and really caused no harm to anybody. I edited the article, and

sent it back to her. I was astonished to later see the original article

published in the Ma'ariv, the one before my editing. I informed Jonathan

that I am no longer willing to meet with her."

 

The relationship between her and Pollard is described by Esther-Eileen like

a love story from the movies: "We first met in Israel, in 1971. We were

both here in different summer camps from our respective youth movements and

we met in the Gallile. After his imprisonment I saw a section in the

newspaper inviting people to write to him in prison. I took up the offer

and he answered me. I read his letter and I felt like I was looking in a

mirror."

 

In an interview to the Jerusalem local paper "Kol Ha'ir", that was

published in May, this year, Eileen Zeits has a somewhat different version

which is also the one known to all involved in the case. To the journalist,

Ronit Tzach, she told, that the relationship between herself and Pollard

began when she first saw the above mentioned section in the newspaper, six

years ago, meaning long after Pollard was arrested.

 

Dr. Morris Pollard: "It was I, to my great regret, who assisted in their

acquaintance. Three years ago, she wrote me a letter requesting of me to

set up a meeting between her and Jonathan. I wanted to get to know this

wonderful woman who was interested in my son's well-being. I spoke to her

on the phone and invited her out to our home. She refused. I offered to pay

for her expenses to come and she still refused. Maybe I should have

realized back then that there is something strange about this woman. On the

telephone she was all sweetness, and would phone us very often. She

succeeded in persuading me to put an effort in promoting her case. I turned

to my friends in congress and they obtained for her an entrance pass to the

prison. From the moment she first entered the prison walls, we no longer

heard from her. She cut off all contact with us."

 

And the marriage? "Of the marriage to my son, I learned from others, not

from her", says Dr. Pollard. "About two years ago I called her and asked if

there is anything we can do to help. She said that she is taking care of

Jonathan and that is was none of my business. We don't blame Jonathan. He's

been in already 11 years, in a very frustrating situation. It is possible

to understand him, when someone comes along who seems like an anchor, he's

going to grab hold of it with two hands."

 

We know each other for six years and are married for three of them", says

Eileen Zeits. "You have no idea how important Jonathan is to me. We can be

separated physically, but emotionally I am never alone. I desperately miss

him. Tonight I spoke to him on the phone and I said to him, I can face

anything in the world except if something happens to you. Thank G-d, we

understand one another. When I entered the relationship with Jonathan, many

people put obstacles in our way. They tried to prevent me from giving

information to Jonathan. They told me, this and this, you are not allowed

to tell him.The people who were supposedly supporting him kept from me

important information. I did not agree to this and I promised myself and

Jonathan that I would never lie. Ever since then, I have never kept

anything from him and I know that he is completely open with me."

She doesn't only have complaints about the US government, but also the

government of Israel. "My husband is about to die, and the government of

Israel is doing nothing about it. They don't give us time to be alone. You

understand, they discriminate Jonathan on all levels. All our meeting take

place under the watchful surveillance of cameras and prison guards. We want

to have children very much. Time is running out, I am already 39 years old.

Jonathan is also not young. There is no logical reason for the physical

separation between us."

 

The Pollard family dispute the right of Esther-Eileen to use the title "my

husband", when speaking about Jonathan. Carol Pollard: "This woman visited

Jonathan one time and announced that she is engaged. I think it is very

strange, because she announced this to he media and not to his family. I

asked Jonathan on the phone whether this was true and he laughed. The next

time she went to visit Jonathan she came back with this story about a

wedding. I inquired at the prison and discovered that no such wedding took

place. Since then, she photographed Jonathan and herself at the prison a

few times at different intervals. Each time she reported that these

pictures were taken at their wedding, even though she is wearing different

clothes in each picture."

 

How important is it whether there was an official wedding or not?

"If she was a nice person, none at all."

Amnon Dror: "I met Jonathan a short time after the wedding. He told me he

got married. I congratulated him and wished him well. I asked whether there

was a rabbi and witnesses. Jonathan pointed to the heavens. In my opinion

there is no importance to the question whether the two were officially

married. It is enough that they see themselves as a couple."

Joe Miko, assistant manager to the federal prison in Batner, where Pollard

is being held, told "Ha'aretz" that there is no documentation of any

wedding that took place concerning prisoner Pollard: " If a prisoner wishes

to get married with religious rites, he must formerly put in such a request

to the prison's chaplain . This includes also Jewish prisoners. If he gets

permission, a wedding is organized by us. In the security framework of the

prison there is no possibility of holding such a wedding without our

permission or without our knowledge. Also a civil marriage requires a

permit. Every wedding is recorded in the prison's records and is

documented, according to US law, including the archives of Batner's court

house."

Eileen Zeitz reacts angrily to these words: "We had a completely Jewish

wedding. The prison officials offered us also a civil marriage, but we

turned them down. We are Jewish and we got married according to the Jewish

Halacha. We had a rabbi at the wedding as well as two witnesses."

Is it possible to have their names?

 

"No. We know that if we give out their names, they will immediately become

a target for attacks by the same people who claim they are working for

Jonathan's benefit, therefore we are keeping the names secret. In any case,

even Canada recognizes are marriage, as you can well see, the name Pollard

is stamped on my passport."

 

From the immigration department of the Canadian Embassy in Israel it was

stated, that a Canadian civilian can change his name or add another name,

as it is written in his passport, as he wishes, after suitable registration

procedures, even if he/she did not get the added name through marriage.

As opposed to the marriage with Jonathan Pollard, nobody disclaims the

marriage between Eileen Zeits and Barney Scarf, a Toronto resident, 15

years ago. They were married for two years. According to Scarf, Eileen

tried to separate me from my family. "She hated my parents, my sister and

my friends. I remember asking her to go also to my parents' house for Seder

night just for once. She refused adamantly. In the end, Eileen gave me a

choice: Either her or my family and friends. Luckily for me, I wasn't in

prison and I was able to get up and go."

 

Eileen Zeits thinks she is alone in the struggle to free Pollard. Everyone,

she claims, but really, everyone, collaborated to silence Pollard with the

purpose of him rotting in jail. This serious accusation is not only aimed

at the US government, but also to the members of the public committee to

free Pollard, headed by Amnon Dror, the Pollard family, and the government

of Israel, both the previous and the present one.

 

"The only success the public committee had was to silence Jonathan" she

claims. "Amnon Dror, the chairman of the committee, works for the

government of Israel. That is also the reason why I went on a hunger

strike, I wanted people to understand, to know what happened. It wasn't

only a strike for Jonathan, but a final action that a desperate woman can

do not only for Jonathan, but for any Jewish soldier."

 

Her accusations also concern the way in which donations were collected. "A

whole system became very rich following the the money collected for

Jonathan. All kinds of "Machers" in New York pretended to work for him, but

in actual fact, were working in the name of the government of Israel to

silence him. Until recently, all of Jonathan's lawyers were paid by the

government of Israel. By the Public committee paying their salaries, they

were also able to give them orders. Jonathan discovered that the people who

were supposed to be representing him, the Public Committee, Amnon Dror, his

lawyer and his family, were doing the opposite of what he was telling them

to do. It drove him crazy and in the end he couldn't take it any longer,

and he severed all contact with them."

 

Amnon Dror and Carol Pollard strictly deny this and displayed evidence that

the money donated for the prisoner were used for his needs only. Says Dror:

"It is inconceivable to even think, not for me and not for anyone who was

close to Jonathan, to give advice to him whom to marry or whom to love. It

is none of our business. If Jonathan chose, then we all blessed him on his

choice. But since the day that Jonathan made contact with Esther Zeits,

some things have changed, that have, in my opinion, a negative result in

Pollard's chances for an early release. It has totally decreased the

motivation of many of the people who were working for his release,

including a thick wall that was built between Jonathan and his family,

friends, lawyer and some very prominent Jewish leaders."

 

Dror has difficulty restraining himself upon hearing Zeits's crude

accusations. "It may not be too early to tell", he says, "that political

sources in the US headed by the president and his aides, were already

willing a year and a half ago to release Pollard. Rabin was going to meet

with Clinton and the general feeling was that the release is at hand. And

then, within a few days there was a sudden turnover. I don't know how much

the new aggressive policy of some of the well wishers of Pollard affected

Clinton's decision to decline Pollard's release, but I so know from

officials who determine in this mater, that it upset them very much that

they were accused of discrimination, anti-Semitism, and abuse of a prisoner."

Eileen complains that the Public Committee is operating from generous

government funding, while she is forced to dwindle her savings in her

attempts to free Pollard.

 

"I will take this opportunity to declare that I was never employed in the

past or in the present by the government of Israel concerning Pollard. I

never received directives or orders. Our only sin is that we were

successful in persuading the government to double their efforts in

releasing Jonathan Pollard and to budget large amounts of money for this

purpose. I don't think I deserve any thanks for this, but certainly not

such criticism from one who insistently claims to be Jonathan's loyal wife."

Jonathan asked me to cover the cost of Esther's frequent visits to the

prison. I informed him on the spot that the Public Committee will cover all

of her expenses. A week later I received an official letter from Esther

Zeits - "My husband and myself have reached the conclusion that we don't

want anything from you, because it is clear to us that you are pretending

that you want Jonathan's release, while in fact you really want him to stay

in prison."

 

Zeits: "They tried to buy Jonathan. They succeeded in buying off his

sister. They won't succeed in dirtying me with their money. Of course I

refused to receive any money from them, and that's the real thing that

frightens them. They know that they can't buy Esther." The conspiracy

philosophy she associates the government of Israel with is very developed:

"Israeli senior Intelligence agents, and I know their names, came to visit

Jonathan in the name of the Israel Government and tried to persuade him to

commit suicide."

Shai Bazak, media advisor to the prime minister, comments on the accusation

with five words: "There was no such thing."

 

Lawyer Nancy Locky remembers slightly different tunes during the previous

government. "Zeits tried to portray Jonathan as a symbol of neglect by the

leftist government, especially of the late Yitzchak Rabin. I can testify

that he, more than all the politicians, did everything he could to free

Jonathan."

 

Zeits did not give the Likud government credit either. At the end of July,

shortly after Benjamin Netanyahu formed his government, she started a

hunger strike in front of the prime minister's office. Netanyahu received

her in his office. She left his office encouraged and agreed to stop the

hunger strike. She even praised the new prime minister. Now she claims,

that Netanyahu promised to release Pollard by Rosh Hashana; now the

holidays have passed, and Pollard is still imprisoned.

Shai Bazak, media advisor to the prime minister, states in Netanyahu's

name: "The prime minister told Mrs. Pollard that he will continue with his

efforts for her husband's release, though he had reservations whether his

efforts would have immediate effect. From this, of course, it is clear that

there was no promise to the effect that Pollard would be released by Rosh

Hashana."

 

Following the meeting with Esther Zeits-Pollard the prime minister ran a

thorough investigation about her. Various sources, including senior

officers in the Intelligence Community, advised Netanyahu to renew to

connection with Pollard's parents. Dr. Morris Pollard was even invited to

meet the prime minister on one of his trips to the US, but his wife's

physical condition prevented him from making the trip from Indiana to

Washington. Instead he received a phone call from Netanyahu of which he

describes as "very warm".

 

Zeits has still not gotten over the insult. "We made it completely clear to

the prime minister who is Jonathan's sole legal representative", she says.

We explicitly asked him not to contact his family. And what happens in the

end? He comes to the US and the first thing he does is to call Jonathan's

parents. If he really wanted to free Jonathan, why does he behave in such a

manner? Why doesn't the prime minister's office answer my letters and

faxes? They are purposely ignoring me, because they know that it is

difficult to deceive me and they won't succeed in giving me stories like

they tell his parents."

 

This doesn't end her claims. "Netanyahu could have released Jonathan a long

time ago", she is sure. "He could have said that he will not forgive

Clinton for his support of Peres, and that he will not come to Washington

if he cannot take Jonathan back with him. How can he behave in such a

manner? Something stinks here."

 

She also drags the pilot prisoner, Ron Arad into her accusations. "It's not

that the government of Israel disappointed Jonathan personally. Jonathan

represents the Jewish soldier who left for was and has not yet returned.

How is it that the only soldiers we have managed to return were dead? How

is it that we did not stop the release of terrorists until we got back Ron

Arad? Jonathan is not alone. This is a group of people, of fighters who

have served their country, and their country has not returned the favor."

Shai Bazak: "The prime minister has activated in the past and in the

present for Pollard's release, while he was in the opposition and presently

while serving as prime minister. In this framework, the prime minister met

with Esther Pollard and with Dr. Morris Pollard and he spoke with President

Clinton and other government officials in the US with the intent of

bringing about Pollard's release."

His wife claims that you are ignoring her and not answering her inquiries.

"The prime minister himself met with Mrs. Pollard a few times and his

office is in contact with her."

 

Esther Pollard claims that the manager of media in the prime minister's

office, David Bar-Ilan, is the one who is blocking her way to Netanyahu and

throwing difficulties her way. Bar Ilan is furious: "I don't block anyone's

way to the prime minister. I operate according to the prime minister's

directives. We organized the meetings between her and the prime minister,

against the advice of many. When she first came to the prime minister's

office, I was completely astounded to hear her claim that Pollard's family

have outside interests in the matter. We asked Alan Dershowitz, who knows

something about the American law to meet with her. He called us later,

dumbfounded, and said that she declared in his face that the government of

Israel needs to release Pollard in a similar fashion of the Entebbe rescue.

 

Now this is something that is not altogether rational, to say the least."

Esther Zeits also criticizes the care he receives from the prison. "He is

forever being discriminated against as o[opposed to the other prisoners. It

is not even connected to the management of the prison. These are direct

orders from Washington. Every other prisoner is allowed to wear a watch.

Jonathan is not allowed. Every prisoner is allowed to wear a wedding ring.

Jonathan is not allowed to. All the prisoners have radios. Jonathan doesn't

have. he needs to get permission from Washington to receive a new pair of

shoes. His old pair tore and he begged for new ones. They wouldn't give

them to him. He asked the prison guards to lend him shoes just for my

visits to him, so that I wouldn't see him wearing rags. They wouldn't. A

year went by until he was granted permission and in the end we bought him

new shoes with our own money. And that's how our good friends the Americans

treat us."

And that's not all. "His prison has changed very much over the last year.

They put dangerous prisoners in with him".

Was he attacked?

 

"I will only say that ever since arriving to jail, Jonathan learned how to

fight, the prisoners antisemitism as well as that of the prison wardens.

Before he was transferred to the prison he is in now, senior officials from

Washington came to survey the prison to check where the most difficult work

was so they could place Jonathan there. They put him with the material

cutters, which has harmed his health very much. Afterwards he was

transferred to the Optical factory, where he is forced to work without air

conditioning, with chemicals that give him headaches and dizzy spells. By

the way, Jonathan is sick today. He has a throat infection. The air in the

prison is recycled, there is no ventilation or fresh air, therefore if a

prisoner gets sick, everyone gets sick."

 

The prison authorities deny these accusations. Says Joe Miko, the assistant

administrator of the federal prison in Batner: "We treat Jonathan Pollard

in the same fair and humane way we treat all of the prisoners. He is not

discriminated in any shape or form. It is not clear to us why Ms. Zeits has

not complained directly to us before she turned to the media. As for the

issues at hand: If Jonathan Pollard has no medical problems he may wear a

wedding ring or watch if he wishes to do so. The story about the shoes is

simply not true. We provide clothing as necessary. There is no request for

a permit from Washington in order to receive new shoes."

 

About the work conditions Miko says: "Jonathan Pollard filed a request to

work in the Optical factory. We granted his request. We have no

documentation of headaches or dizzy spells from Mr. Pollard. In general, I

would say that his physical condition is pretty good. The prison has a

central air conditioning system that constantly blows in fresh air." Joe

Miko wishes to clarify: "We do not operate in the Pollard issue through

directives from Washington. He receives here equal treatment to any other

prisoner."

 

Amnon Dror feels that some of Zeits's accusation can harm Pollard

indirectly. "Some of the people who are operating for Pollard, in the

government, in the White House, in the Justice Department and in the Prison

services are Jewish", he explains, "and to accuse them of antisemitism is

the most idiotic thing you can do. The Americans read these articles and

are insulted, therefore it also harms Pollard. More than that, the

conditions in the prison he is in now are very reasonable. In the previous

prison, in Marion, the conditions really were bad, for Jonathan as well as

for the other prisoners who were there. We were not ashamed to complain

about it and we tried to improve the situation. But in Batner the

conditions are much better."

 

Nancy Locky visited Pollard many times at the prison. "Besides the fact

that it is a prison and you are not a free man there and must abide to the

rules, the conditions right now are not too difficult", she says. "Jonathan

has a telephone, radio, television and newspapers and altogether, in

relation to a prisoner, his condition is all right."

 

The final breakaway between Zeits and the activists on his Pollard's behalf

came when she demanded that Pollard be given an Israeli passport. Pollard

supported the idea, but the Committee's members, as well as Locky, fiercely

opposed the idea. According to them, sympathetic sources from the Law

Office and from the Intelligence community in the US hinted that if Israel

will give a passport and citizenship to an American civilian who spied

against his country, it will look like an antagonism and would only put off

Pollard's release even more.

 

Locky, the attorney: "As time passed I have become more and more convinced

that she doesn't really want to see Jonathan on the outside. The present

situation is ideal from her point of view; If Pollard is released, they

will stop interviewing her. Her whole power rests on that he is inside, and

you can quote me on this. Somehow it's always connected to

publicity:Jonathan doesn't speak Hebrew and she translates for him

incorrectly the articles publicized about him. We have transferred to him

exact translations of our own and we discovered that she had them changed

in a fashion that was convenient for her. That's how, for instance, she has

changed articles that were connected to me from the moment that she had

decide that I am in her way."

 

Also Amnon Dror has come across a similar problem. "It was confusing to me

that in all my many visits to Pollard in jail there was a complete and

excellent atmosphere of understanding, the relationship between us deepened

until they turned into friendship. And here, as soon as I would leave the

prison I would hear on the media a statement in Jonathan's name, that was

totally opposite to what just happened just a short time ago in his cell. I

learned my lesson and since then when I visit, I bring with me another person".

 

Amnon Dror and Locky the attorney prepared a five phase plan for the

release of Jonathan Pollard, which included a request of pardon while

admitting a commitment of a crime and a show of remorse. Just then Zeits

appeared on the scene with the Israeli citizenship story. "I was against

the request for the citizenship", says locky, "it was clear to me that it

would not help anything and would only harm the case. I told this to

Jonathan. He was silent and just said that Esther thought it was a good

idea. Eileen for her part, told him that I told the press how much I am

against the idea of citizenship. That was a gross lie, but Jonathan

believed her, called me, and said only 'You're fired' and hung up."

Zeits: Jonathan hated Locky from the start. He also tried to fire her three

times previously, but the Public Committee and his sister continued to

employ her as if nothing happened. Only when we went with it to the press,

they had no choice."

 

Amnon Dror: "That is complete nonsense! Jonathan himself interviewed Locky.

He had an excellent relationship with her and from her part she became

personally committed to his case. There were no particular problems between

them, until she came on the scene."

 

After Locky's dismissal, Zeits hurriedly appointed the lawyers Larry Daub

and Mordechai Ofri, who was publicized as the one who defended the prime

minister's assailant, Yigal Amir (in the meantime Zeits gave up on the idea

of using the services of Ofri and appointed another lawyer). The new

lawyers turned to the previous minister of interior affairs, Ehud Barak,

and requested he give Pollard an Israeli passport. Barak asked officials

from the Law Office and other political figures whether granting Pollard a

passport would help him in any way attain his freedom. The answer was

negative. Barak refused the request as did Chaim Ramon who later took his

place. Eileen Zeits went to the higher court to enforce Ramon to give

Pollard Israeli citizenship. Ramon gave in and regretfully signed for a

passport on Jonathan Pollard's name. It is not known whether this step had

bearing on President Clinton's refusing to pardon Pollard.

 

Zeits-Pollard warmly defends her actions. "The minute the government of

Israel granted Jonathan citizenship it became responsible for him", she

stresses. "Because of his citizenship he now appears on one of the major

principles of the government, just like the rest of the missing soldiers.

 

For ten years he asked for citizenship in quiet ways, but those, who

supposedly worked for him, but in reality were working for the government

of Israel, silenced him. In the end he told me: 'Esther, you got to do this

for me'. Everyone tried to torpedo this action and then he felt that he can

no longer go on like this and he severed the connection with his family.

 

It's a shame that Jonathan's parents are not satisfied being just a regular

father and mother, to come and visit him, to look after him, instead they

are forever trying to interfere with what we are doing for his release."

In her opinion, dealing with these issues shirk the real issue of freeing

Pollard. "His relationship with his parents is not what matters now. When

he is release from jail he can patch up things with his parents.", she

promises. "I have two purposes in life: One, to free Jonathan and save his

life.

The second purpose is sanctifying the name of G-d and the Truth."

Amnon Dror is not angry at Pollard. "As long as Jonathan is in jail I

forgive him in advance for anything has said or will say through his wife,

words that brought great damage first of all to himself, and gave many who

had dedicated their time and money for his cause a feeling of ingratitude.

For he has been imprisoned for an extended length of time and under

conditions where it is difficult to be level-headed.

 

I will forgive Jonathan for everything, except for one thing which there is no forgiveness

for. His attitude to his parents. His mother is ill and he refuses to speak

to her. I tried to persuade him to speak to them, despite the anger he

feels toward them because of all kinds of ideas that were put in his head.

I told him, pick up a phone, and say hello to your parents. he said: 'No,

they're not okay with Esther".

 

2) I remember reading at www.Debka.com that Pollard's wife was working in the

marketing department of a Red Chinese front group in New York. This would explain

why she wants her husband in jail. Debka said he was selling information to China. But

they often do not check their facts and are not real journalists. She might have been the

one who was helping China.

 

2) I remember reading at www.Debka.com that Pollard's wife was working in the

marketing department of a Red Chinese front group in New York. This would explain

why she wants her husband in jail. Debka said he was selling information to China. But

they often do not check their facts and are not real journalists. She might have been the

one who was helping China.

 

 

SHIMON PERES IS KEEPING JONATHAN POLLARD IN PRISON

(The Real Reason Why Pollard Sits)

By Barry Chamish

19 June 2003

 

In early May, '03, I was hired by a group of Israelis now organizing

rallies on behalf of Joanathan Pollard's freedom to find out why, defying

all reason, he is still sitting in prison. The people who approached me

were highly dissatisfied with the official Pollard organization run by

Esther Pollard and in fact, suspected her of sabotaging all alternative

efforts to liberate her spouse. Since I took on the project, I have noted

Esther Pollard's interference with demonstrations, speakers and even one

webmaster (www.jonathanpollard.com) working on behalf of justice for

Jonathan Jay Pollard.

I don't know what her motivations are, perhaps they are just a

personal need for attention, perhaps they are more sinister, but with

Esther Pollard at the helm, no new evidence has emerged that could possibly

result in Pollard's release. Recent excitement over the revelations that

Pollard was sitting for the crimes of master spy Aldrich Ames, as written

by John Loftus, are not revelations at all. I discovered the exact claims

in a prominent Maariv article from 1985, since repeated often in the Hebrew

press.

To sort out the puzzle, I referred to a wide variety of sources and

was unfortunate in having a personal expert nearby. He is Joel Bainerman,

author of the 1992 classic book on Iran Contra-related felonies, Crimes Of

A President. He thoughtfully provided me with relevant text, as well as his

rough notes and contacts.

One of his contacts was William Northrup, who lives in a kibbutz near

Beersheva and was held in a New York lockup for 10 months on suspicion of

illegally selling military hardware to Iran. He insists that the Americans

came down hard on Pollard because he exposed the Bechtel Corporation's

production of chemical weapons in Iraq.

In the same lockup for the same crime was Ari Ben-Menashe, who wrote

a tell-all book called The Profits Of War. He became a primary source for

Seymour Hersch and Joel Bainerman, though far from their only one. All have

been besmirched by the official Pollard organization but that doesn't mean

their facts are all wrong. I use what I have judged to be likely truths.

By the same token, I have utilized many more conventional sources

and their basic facts are far from consistently reliable. It was a task

just sorting out the dates of the known history. Pollard, himself, insists

that he started his spying in July, 1984. Loftus and Aarons have him

identifying an arms shipment in April of 1984. That would make the

Hersch/Ben Menashe claim that Pollard began his clandestine work in 1981,

more plausible.

But once one excuses the inconsistencies, a very consistent story

emerges. Pollard thought he was helping Israel protect itself and that his

material would fall into honest, trusted hands. Sadly for him, it fell into

the grimy paws of Shimon Peres and he used it to create a crime empire,

broadly called Iran Contra. It is the fear of exposing Peres and his

cronies, that is the real reason why the Israeli government has made no

sincere effort to free Joanthan Jay Pollard.

It's a fairly complicated story and I will lead you through it by

way of other people's research. When I comment you will see three stars ***

at the beginning and end of the commentary. For instance:

 

*** In 1987, a government commission of inquiry headed by Abba Eban issued

its report on the Pollard Affair. It concluded that the man most

responsible for the fiasco was Shimon Peres, who became Prime Minister in

late May, 1984. He was not only apprised of Pollard's intelligence, he read

it daily. Receiving smaller portions of blame were Defence Minister Yitzhak

Rabin and Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

This long buried report is, naturally, long forgotten because Peres

spent a good week denying every word in it and arranging the end of Eban's

political carrer. But let us not forget, the official investigation

conducted by the Israel government concluded that Peres was the chief

culprit.***

 

LEADING THE COVERUP

 

Amir Oren, Haaretz, 1998: "Shimon Peres was almost as concerned about

domestic policies as he was about the American reaction. He was proud of

the fact that he, Rabin and Shamir refrained from mutual recriminations and

how that prevented the media from turning it into an Israeli Watergate.

Peres worked hard to prevent public discussion..."

 

Zeev Segal, Haaretz 24/10/95: "One body that studied the subject was a

committee headed by then MK, Abba Eban. In a report published in May, 1987,

the committee...totally rejected the claim of the government of Israel,

which stated that the Pollard affair was a 'rogue' operation."

 

Washington Report On Middle East, Jan/Feb 2003: "Eban disappeared from

political life after 1987 (for) a report criticizing Labor Party leaders

Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for using American Joanthan Jay Pollard to

spy on the United States. Both rebuked him and the next year his name was

left off the candidates for parliament."

 

Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option, Random House, 1991: "The Israeli

Officials most tarnished by the scandal were Rafi Eitan and Aviem Sella,

but Eitan did not suffer financially. He was subsequently named to a high

administrative position with Israel Chemicals, the largest state-owned

enterprise in Israel. His surprising appointment was authorized by none

other than Ariel Sharon, who had been named Minister of Trade and Industry

in 1984."

 

***And Sharon is not the only high present official involved in the

coverup. Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein was the legal attache to the

Washington Embassy Pollard was ejected from, and later tried out a coverup

tactic that Washington attorney Leonard Garment found odious. Such details

must be presented in a wider-ranging future report. For now let us get to

the heart of the matter at hand...Iran Contra.***

 

IRAN CONTRA

 

Federal Government Watch Discussion List: "The back channel came alive

under Vice-President Bush from 1984-91. The channel was used to direct the

laundering of American money to the PLO. Although Pollard didn't know it,

when he warned the Israelis that a PLO arms shipment was going through

Greece in 1984, he inadvertantly blew the whistle of the White House's

first transaction of arms to Iran...In the summer of 1984, Pollard noticed

a pattern of vessels going back and forth from Greece to Yemen, where the

PLO had a major base. Pollard passed the tip to the Israelis. In the summer

of 1984, the Israelis tipped off the Greek authorities who seized an entire

shipload of arms believed destined for the PLO. Neither Pollard nor the

government of Israel was aware that they had smashed George Bush's first

shipment of arms to Iran. Pollard never realized that he had busted the

most secret White House operation of modern times. The summer of 1984 Greek

shipment was a dagger over George Bush's head."

 

Loftus, Aarons, The Secret War Against The Jews: "Pollard notified the

Israelis, who passed word to the Greeks, who raided the arms ship. None of

the players knew that this shipment was directly connected to an event two

months previous, in which US hostages had been kidnapped in Lebanon. The

ship had not been commissioned by Arafat but by US Vice-President Bush and

was ultimately destined for the patron the of Lebanese kidnappers, Iran.

The shipment marks he true beginning of the infamous Iran Contra scandal.

 

Winston Mideast Analysis And Commentary 8/13/99: "Pollard inadvertantly

exposed the first shipment of arms-for-hostages in what became the Iran

Contra scandal. As he was in the Naval Intelligence Anti-Terrorism Unit, he

saw this shipment, one year earlier than is generally known, and believing

it to be arms for the PLO or Iraq, revealed it to the Israelis. This alone

would make it imperative for the Iran/Contra planners to keep him locked up

forever."

 

***Enter Peres. Pollard provided the data that exposed Bush's arms for

hostages operation. Of course, a moral Prime Minister would have demanded

that Bush put an end to this arming of Israel's worst enemies. But Peres is

not remotely moral, so he saw the bigger potential of this nascent crime.

He wanted in and the crime expanded into what we know as Irangate.

How do we know this? Because when Pollard discovered the arms ship,

Israel had no role in paying America's enemies off with arms for releasing

hostages in Lebanon. But by September, Peres had sent a team to Washington

consisting of Yaacov Nimrodi, the former Ambassador to Iran, Al Schwimmer,

former head of Israel Aircraft Industries, and David Kimche, chairman of

the Israeli branch of the Council On Foreign Relations.

After that, Israel was right in the middle of the operation. This is

basic indisputable logic. Israel joined the operation only after Pollard's

intelligence exposed the existence of it. That means Peres wanted a piece

of the pie and must have used Pollard's data to get his cut of the action.

The easiest way in would have been threatening to expose the arms

for hostages operation and bring down Bush and his team. We call such a

threat, blackmail. And that's how Pollard's good intentions were used. And

not for the last time.

Shortly after Pollard's capture on Non.22/85, the Peres team of

Kimche, Schwimmer and Nimrodi all quit the operation. In laymen's terms,

they hauled ass out of there. But Peres didn't want to give up all the

goodies that came with Iran Contra. So in January 1986, he replaced the

team with his anti-terrorism advisor Amiram Nir. He was murdered in 1989 in

Mexico shortly before he was to testify to the Senate Committee

investigating Irangate.

Lest one think Iran Contra wasn't worth the trouble, look how much

just one member of Peres' team brought in for his effort and then consider

what Nir knew. Finally, note who else quit his post in the wake of Pollard;

the American National Security Advisor, Bud McFarlane, who resigned in Dec.

85.***

 

Joel Bainerman, Crimes Of A President, SPI Books, NY, 1992, raw notes and

final text: "In June l991 an Israel police investigation was opened to

determine if Nimrodi withheld profits from the sales from the Defence

Ministry.

A month later Nimrodi made a public declaration in a Tel Aviv court

stating that he had acted on his own behalf in his arms dealings with

the Iranians and thus all the profits from the deals were his. He

claimed he earned $37 million from the Iranians, but after paying for

the missiles and other expenses, he says he took a loss on the deal of

nearly $750,000. (Inside Israel, August, l993)

 

Those same bank records in Switzerland could have become a nightmare

for some Israeli government officials, namely Prime Minister Peres,

even shedding light on why the Israeli government never allowed Nir

(or Schwimmer and Nimrodi) to testify before Congressional

investigations. Was Peres perhaps worried that Nir would disclose that

it was his role in the diversion of money from the Iranian arms sales

to the Contras or that he personally authorized the establishment of

the fund to initiate covert anti-terrorist operations?

Indeed Nir knew a great deal about U.S. and Israeli arms sales to Iran

because he was the roundabout via everyone's activities passed

through. He must have known who set up the Swiss accounts, who

controlled them, and how much went to the Contras and how much to

middlemen like Ghorbanifar and Secord's pockets? He sat in on crucial

meetings in Teheran, Frankfurt, Washington, Tel Aviv and London. He

knew of all covert operations and where the money originated from to

fund them.

In an interview with YEDIOT ACHRONOT after leaving office in March

l987 Nir said that Shamir went out of his way to protect his name and

reputation, in Israel and in the U.S., while Peres simply "left him to

the dogs" adding that "the moment you need support from him (Peres),

he vanishes."'

 

DID POLLARD HAVE HELP?

 

Codevilla, MENL 24/7/00: "He gave them that part of the flow of US

intelligence which they used to receive regularly, but which the US cut off

in 1981...This consisted of intelligence 'products.' It was satellite

pictures, reports of all kinds, electronic directories and so forth."

 

John Loftus, Moment, 6/03: "Jonathan Pollard didn't have the 'blue stripe'

clearance according to intelligence sources I spoke with. That was the

bombshell that would clear him of any possible connection to the deaths of

our Russian agents."

 

Codevilla, ibid: "Jonathan Pollard could not have provided codes, because

he did not have any access to codes."

 

Ari Ben-Menashe, Profits Of War, Sheridan Square Press, 1992: "McFarlane,

in fact, had been providing computer access codes of intelligence reports

to Rafi Eitan, according to Eitan. Sitting in Tel Aviv, Eitan would request

computer access codes for certain items he was interested in.

A representative in Washington, a woman named Iris, would pass the request

to McFarlane. He would then give her back the specified access codes. She

would give the codes to Pollard."

 

Consortiumnews.com 8/6/03: :The issue was brought to the high court by

former national security advisor Robert McFarlane who claims he was libeled

by a 1991 Esquire magazine story linking him to the Jonathan Pollard spy

case...Both courts ruled that McFarlane failed to show that Esquire

displayed a reckless disregard for the truth."

 

***Now we move into stage two of the exploitation of Jonathan Pollard.

Pollard was assigned to receive and analyse satellite photos of ship

positions and look for aberrant routes. That would have made the discovery

of Bush's arms ship natural. But for the next piece of Peres blackmail, he

would most likely have needed help.

Pollard uncovered a crime the equal of Iran Contra: the American

corporation Bechtel was making chemical weaponry for Saddam Hussein. And

Peres instinctively knew he could milk this discovery for all it was worth

because Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger was a VP of Bechtel before

choosing public service and Secretary of State George Shultz was a former

Bechtel CEO.

I have no doubt that Pollard passed the Bechtel gas data to Israel

but how he got it is still in dispute. Perhaps he received satellite photos

which exposed the factories, but it seems more likely that he was given

intelligence much higher than he was entitled to receive. For that he would

have needed help from one of the few entitled to receive top secret access

codes and Robert McFarlane as National Security Advisor was one those few.***

 

BECHTEL AND CASPAR WEINBERGER

 

Codevilla, MENL 24/7/00: "This memo contained the lie that Pollard caused

the deaths of countless US agents. It also reportedly said the Israelis

sold part of that information to the Soviet Union. All of these things are

not only untrue, they were known by Weinberger not to be true...The policy

was building up Iraq, a policy to which Weinberger and much of the rest of

the US government sacrificed true American interests in the 1980s. We

supplied Saddam Hussein with not only arms but with intelligence and

forbearance...The main thing is we permitted, licensed and financed large

American corporations to build plants there. The infrastructure that is

being bombed in Iraq right now is mostly American-built. Now we get to the

deeply embarassing part. One of the companies involved was Bechtel, with

whom Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz, Secretaries of Defense and

State, had close personal relations."

 

Federal Government Watch Discussion List, Yahoo, message 631: ""As Jonathan

Pollard discovered to his horror, the German nerve gas factories

constructed in Libya and Iraq are using the identical formulas used on Jews

at Auschwitz... President Bush Sr. was good friends with Saddam's Deputy

Foreign Minister and made personal phone calls to one of his former Yale

classmates to obtain American funding for Bechtel's oil pipeline in

Iraq...The Bechtel corporation was even building Saddam Hussein a chemical

factory he could use for poison gas production."

 

Counterpunch.org, 9/4/03: "Schultz worked at Bechtel, so did Caspar

Weinberger.Bechtel was listed by Iraq in its report to the UN weapons

inspectors as one of the companies that helped supply Saddam with equipment

and knowledge for making chemical weapons. Bechtel in the 1980s was prime

contractor on PC1 and 2, two petrochemical plants constructed in Iraq which

had dual use capacity. So I guess the bottom line is that the

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield squad are now holding Saddam Hussein accountable for

chemical weapons of mass destruction - the same weapons which these same

officials ignored in pursuit of the Aqaba pipeline project.

 

IRAQ PIPELINE

 

Barry Chamish, The Fall Of Israel, Canongate, Edinburgh, 1992:"By 1985

Syria had closed down Iraq's pipeline to the Mediterranean and Iran was

blockading the Persian Gulf.Iraq wanted to build an alternative pipeline to

Aqaba, Jordan's Red Sea port, and the American corporation Bechtel agreed

to construct this multi-billion dollar project, but only if it received

assurances that Israel would never blow it up, not even in wartime.

American Attorney-General Edwin Meeese approached Peres who agreed in

return for $70 million a year to be transferred to the Israeli Labor Party.

When word of the bribe leaked, Meese was forced out of office, but, as

usual, scandal escaped Peres."

 

Joel Bainerman, Crimes Of A President, Notes And Final Text:

 

"Pipeline deal. To be built by the Bechtel company. It would feed 300,000

barrels of oil each day from Iraqi oilfields to a terminal at the Jordanian

port of Aquaba. As part of the arrangement, then Israeli Prime Minister

Shimon Peres's Labor party would receive up to $1 billion over a ten year

period in return for a pledge not to bomb the pipeline in the event of a

war."

 

 

McFarlane was also the major White House backer of the Iraqi pipeline deal.

To bebuilt by the Bechtel company it would feed 300,000 barrels of oil each

day from Iraqi oilfields to a terminal at the Jordanian port of Aquaba. As

part of the arrangement, then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres's Labor

party would receive up to $1 billion over a ten year period in return for a

pledge not to bomb the pipeline in the event of a war.

 

Originally, it may have been intended to have this money come from

the Pentagon's budget. When John Poindexter took over from McFarlane as

National Security Adviser in December l985 he killed a plan his predecessor

had come up with to have secret payments made to Israel out of a heavily

disguised National Security Counsel-controlled appropriation in the

Pentagon's budget. (Washington Post, March 5th, l988) "The idea was for it

to come out of the defence budget on an installment basis," one source was

quoted as saying. "It was, to be a payment to the Israelis to be good."

(Washington Post,February 25th, l988)

.

 

It may be nothing but a mere coincidence, but Israel's spy in

Washington, Jonathan Pollard, was operating throughout McFarlane's period

as National Security Advisor. A month after Pollard was arrested, McFarlane

resigned. Yet six months later he is leading a delegation on a secret

mission to Teheran. Why didn't National Security Adviser Poindexter go?

 

McFarlane's ties to Rafi Eitan, then the Prime Minister's

Anti-Terrorism Advisor and who would later be named as the Israeli

intelligence agent behind the masterminding of the Pollard affair, also

need to be investigated.

 

Counterpunch.org, 9/4/03: "Bechtel and the State Department were having

trouble getting the right degree from the Israeli Labor Party that the

pipeline would be off limits to attack. Bechtel and Reagan administration

officials were trying to get complete assurance from the Labor Party that

the pipeline would absolutely not be attacked."

 

***So here's what the Peres government did with Pollard's intelligence:

they put the squeeze on Bechtel and that meant on Caspar Weinberger. The

threat was simple enough: if you guys at Bechtel don''t find a way to

funnel me a lot of money, $700 million will do, we'll expose the Iraqi gas

plants and sabotage your pipeline deal. Hence, the insurance policy excuse

was formulated under great duress.

When a very peeved Weinberger discovered that it was Pollard who was

passing Peres his blackmail weapons, he showed no mercy. He intervened with

Pollard's judge and made sure he got life for a five year crime knowing the

Israeli government could put no stop to him or risk its own massive exposure.

Weinberger is home free. In 1992, President Bush pardoned him for all

Iran Contra-related crimes. Shimon Peres was just chosen as head of the

Israeli Labor Party. And unless this little piece of the whole truth is

thoroughly investigated, Jonathan Pollard will sit for good in his cold,

cold cell.***

 

 

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute